Republicans Fighting

[shortstop]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a rare public swipe at a fellow Republican, House Speaker Dennis Hastert on Wednesday questioned the GOP credentials of John McCain, a U.S. senator who has often challenged party orthodoxy.

Talking to reporters, Hastert pretended not to know who McCain was when asked about a recent statement by the GOP senator from Arizona.

As other House GOP members stood behind him laughing, Hastert, R-Illinois, then expressed doubt that McCain was indeed a Republican.

The exchange started when a reporter asked: "Can I combine a two issues, Iraq and taxes? I heard a speech from John McCain the other day..."

Hastert: "Who?"

Reporter: "John McCain."

Hastert: "Where's he from?"

Reporter: "He's a Republican from Arizona."

Hastert: "A Republican?"

Amid nervous laughter, the reporter continued with his question: "Anyway, his observation was never before when we've been at war have we been worrying about cutting taxes and his question was, 'Where's the sacrifice?' "

Hastert: "If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And, at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong."

Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda National Naval Medical Center are two military hospitals in the Washington area.

McCain, a prisoner of war during Vietnam, later released a written statement, taking issue with the spending habits of Republican lawmakers.

"The Speaker is correct in that nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of our troops," McCain said.

"All we are called upon to do is not spend our nation into bankruptcy while our soldiers risk their lives. I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. Apparently those days are long gone for some in our party."

CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

Childish republicans. I'm sure that Bush is thrilled that his "men" are arguing during an eleciton year. Good!!! Let them self destruct.

[ribbon]

Let the games begin!!!! That's the best news I've heard all day.

[PetuniaPetunia]

That Son of a bitchin bastard McCain. Good for him. Dumb ass Hastert. McCain may be the the last laissez-faire republican on the planet. I wish more were like him instead of the freaking american taliban of misogynist social conservatism and economic cronyism of Bush and his ilk. I hear McCain may run as Kerry's vp.

:usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa

Sometimes it's good to rant.

[ribbon]

I would love to see Kerry/McCain ticket. It probably won't happen. I think that would be the best way to bring the parties together to actually working toward a common goal.

[SparkleGirl]

Ugh, if only we didn't have politcal parties and we picked whomever could do the best. Then the people making the rules would vote for the best thing and not just to vote with their party. Republican aside, I love John McCain. He, like Kerry, was a vietnam vet and a POW. And the issues he brings up are for the better good, not for the furtherment of his party. I'm from Massachusetts. John Kerry is our senator, and I'm not overly thrilled with his voting record. But, if John McCain is his running mate, I would definitely vote for him!

[shortstop]

Could you imagine?
That would be incredible if the parties would allow a ticket with both on!! Of course, it probably won't happen, but something drastic and different needs to be done.
Everything seems to be in the interest of the party, not in the interest of the country. And that isn't right. I'm tired of it personally, and no matter what party each and every other fishy is from, you're probably all tired of it too.

[SparkleGirl]

:hugon shortstop :hugoff

I agree with you one hundred percent. I think that when it comes down to it, the two parties are only looking out for themselves and their wealthy business buddies. It's just so ingrained into the government now that we just see it as everyday business. Grr....I care about affordable health care. Lower gas prices. Affordable housing (Here in Taxachusetts, a two bedroom house on a tiny patch of land goes for about Three hundred grand...) and a safe world for all of us. I know it's asking a lot. But I believe that is what the founding fathers of the US were thinking of when they wrote the Constitution. Gah. I hate to get all political. Thanks for listening to me vent! Grr!

[ribbon]

SparkleGirl said: :(Here in Taxachusetts, a two bedroom house on a tiny patch of land goes for about Three hundred grand...)

At least your state is intelligent enough to allow gays to marry legally :supergrin.

[shortstop]

Sparklegirl...
I feel your pain about the housing issue. I live in Los Angeles, and it's just as bad if not worse. There are NO, and I mean NO yards, small houses and they're over three hundred thousand!! It nauseates me. Our founding fathers weren't perfect, but they definately didn't want the kind of party oriented gov't we have now!!

[PleinD-espoir]

I'm really sick of the partisan politics going on in the government and the media.

Both Dems and Reps feel they need to go to the extreme to define themselves?

How many people are one hundred percent Democrat, or Republican? How many are somewhere in between?

I can't side with either. I wish there was a "middle" party. One as prominent as Dems and Rebs, anyway.

[ribbon]

Anathema said: I wish there was a "middle" party. One as prominent as Dems and Rebs, anyway.

Me too! All of the third parties seem to be more to the left or the right. A middle of the road party could bring lots of people together.

[IthinkIcan]

Agreed, Ribbon. Also, as I have been espousing since SEVENTH grade, we also need to do away with the electoral college and implement the popular vote. I remember being assured it would never matter, but to me the only way one's vote truly matters is to dispense with the electoral college.

It's obvious something fairly drastic needs to happen with our present system. There is definitely a feeling of unrest, particularly after the last election.

I've always said I would rather vote for a person than a party, and I think many people are, if they'll search their heart out, more issue-oriented than person-oriented. By that I mean, if they had to choose between an SOB known to have done some questionable things (not saying this applies in this election) but who votes the issues to their belief system or who espouses their belief system and a moral person, most people would pick based on the issues. I think was illustrated well with Clinton. I won't put him in the SOB class, rather I will place him in the immoral, having done things of an unquestionable nature class. He taught our children what oral sex meant, he perjured himself, he literally made a mockery out of us (not comparable to war, I know), but his stands on certain issues made many quick to overlook these things. Not saying right or wrong but human nature. BUT, I'd rather see some decent people running with the interests of the people at heart. I have some unpopular things I'd like voted in, but that's why we have politics. I'd like to see healthcare reform, perhaps even a national healthcare system (my husband sees SOOOOOOOO many uninsured in his job). Other issues that need addressing are affordable housing, public transportation, and healthcare. There needs to be attention to taxes (perhaps a flat tax), gas, utilities (in our area they have been going up about forty-five percent every six months) and the idea that we need babysit the world.

We don't talk about the war much in our home. We don't watch news stories about it or anything when my daughter is up. But, they do talk about it at school some. She came home to us one day with a very pointed question, which I took back to her teacher. She had come up with it on her own. They have to stay neutral to pro-war, so to speak.

She wanted to know, "why would America go to war when lots of people die and are abused on both sides when they don't want us there and we don't want to be there?" She rushed on, "something about democracy. Freedom. If they don't want that, then what's democracy (sic) or free about that."

Er.

I tried to explain, but I'm not fully in support of the war. I explained about the human rights issues. She brought up an article she had read in one of my magazines *blush* I had left in the bathroom, which she had, apparently, read while in the bathroom. "But, mommy, the women are even less protected now. They let out the bad guys. They are being abused and r*ped." *cringe* Didn't know she knew that word.

They do get to go to school now, though, I told her.

She thought about it, "That's good. War is bad. I hope it turns out for good."

Yes, Christie, I told her. War is bad, and I hope so too, but I just don't know, just like (her).

What am I saying? I guess I wish we had even more power than just electing an official.

[ribbon]

Oh :hugon itic :hugoff don't even get me started on the whole electoral college thing. I can't remember which grade sixth, seventh or eighth I learned about it and thought it was a dumb way to pick a president. Gore would be the president if we didn't have the EC. I've been interrested in politics since I was really young. I remember my grandmother saying that Nixon was a bad man and replying, "I like him." :muhaha . I didn't really have a clue who he was at the time. This was during the MCMLXVIII elections. I was too young to understand anything other than the president runs the :usa and didn't understand how she knew he was a bad person. :muhaha.

Your daughter sounds like she's very bright and thoughtful (and smarter than GWB, but that's another post).

[shortstop]

The EC definatley needs to go. I had a poly sci teacher who said that he too did not understand the basic need for the EC, he felt that the pres should be elected by the popular vote.
Our country didn't start out with ECs or parties. So why has the evolution of it gone that way? It really just makes things more complicated than they need to be. I think it's that type of thinking that keeps the young voters away. I know I wasn't interested because I thought I had to be totally one way or the other...but even though I am MOSTLY a liberal democrat, I do not agree with everything the democrats stand for. And I don't think that we should have to agree with everything. And that's what struck me most about that article. Just because McCain thought for himself he was made a mockery of.

[ribbon]

I thought that our country did start out with the EC as a way to make the votes in the smaller states mean as much as those in the larger states. My understanding (and I could be wrong because I haven't had history in twenty five years) is that each state was given one electoral college vote for every senator and congressperson, so the minimum was three votes. This was to give the smaller states at least some representation and also had something to do with the forefathers not trusting the 'common' people to vote. I believe that in a lot of states the EC is not mandated to vote the way the polls were, and is supposed to vote with his/her conscience. Wasn't there some issue about this in MM with one of the EC abstaining? History buffs please correct me if I have this wrong.
I also thought we had political parties from day one They weren't called democrat and republican. but Whigs and Tories.
I think :hugon anakalia:hugoff is the poli-sci buff.

[Amber_Heathen]

If during the two-thousand elections the choice had been between McCain v. Gore, I would have definately voted for McCain and I generally don't vote republican. It was sick what the Bush people did to him. That's been a constant topic on Al Franken's radio show. Now they're trying to do the same thing as what they did to McCain to Kerry. It's pathetic. The Bushies have nothing to run on so all they can do is run negative ad's. I wonder how long before they start doing push-polls. I have not seen ONE negative ad approved by John Kerry. Thats one thing I really like about him, he at least is keeping it positive. He was in Portland, OR on Monday. I was going to head downtown after work to go to the rally but there were thunderstorms coming through and I had a killer of a headache, so I watched on tv. Art from the band Everclear was there, along with Sean Astin from the LOTR movies. That was kinda cool. (I used to listen to Everclear before their music started sounding to pop-ish.)

I think it would be really effective if the Kerry camp would use ad's from the Take Back the Media site... The only downside is, the one that would be *extremely* effective is horribly sad. It's also several minutes in length. It's called "Bush Knew", I couldn't stop crying when I watched it. There's another good one called "Soldier of One", it's set to the song "Zombie" by The Cranberries and goes through all the cuts Bush has made or proposed to VA and the money troops get paid. I'm really worried about this election. If Kerry loses we're all so definately screwed. The draft WILL be brought back. And my husband and I, and both of my brothers are right in the middle of the drafting age.

[ribbon]

Amber_Heathen said: If during the two-thousand elections the choice had been between McCain v. Gore, I would have definately voted for McCain and I generally don't vote republican.

I may have also, depending on how he would vote on choice. He says that he's antichoice but pro Even thought I don't believe in voting on one issue, I couldn't ever vote for a politican that was antichoice (ok, maybe I do believe in voting on one issue :muhaha).
McCain has long been my favorite republican (while that term is somewhat of an oxymoron for me :muhaha).

[shortstop]

:hugon:ribpink:hugoff

There were political parties, but it wasn't like one had to run against another. I don't think that they were as "involved" as they are now. (This is from what I remember) In the past the democrats used to be republicans and vice versa. And I'm pretty sure that there isn't anything in the Constitution about the EC or about political parties. (but there is definately a possibility that I am waaaaaayyyyy wrong on that one) I didn't think that the EC was instituted until a few elections later.
I can't be one hundred percent positive because it's been a few years since I had poly sci and history. :ummm
So if I'm wrong...don't be afraid to tell me!! :muhaha

[ribbon]

Ok I did a little research. The EC is part of the constitution.

The electoral system was devised by the drafters of the U.S. Constitution, who hoped thereby to entrust the responsibility to people whose choice would be unaffected by partisan politics. In Article II, Section One, of the US Constitution, the method of selecting electors is delegated to the separate state legislatures, and the voting procedure to be followed by the electors is carefully defined. According to the electoral procedure originally specified in the Constitution, the electors were to vote for the two most qualified persons without specifying which was preferred for president and which for vice president. The candidate receiving the greatest number of electoral votes, provided the votes of a majority of the electors were received, would be president, and the candidate winning the second largest number of votes would be vice president.

A serious flaw in this procedure was revealed in the election of MDVVV, when Thomas Jefferson was the presidential candidate of the Republican (later the Democratic) party and Aaron Burr was the candidate for vice president. The electors, by voting strictly for candidates of their party, gave Burr and Jefferson the same number of votes. As the Constitution provided, the election was referred to the legislative branch of government, to the House of Representatives, where a protracted struggle took place, requiring thirty-six ballots before Jefferson was chosen president and Burr vice president. Therefore, in MDCCCIV Congress enacted and the states ratified the constitution's twelveth Amendment, providing for separate electoral votes for president and for vice president.

Another important change resulted from a serious dispute in the presidential election of MDCCCLXXVI in which the Republican, Rutherford B. Hayes, and the Democrat, Samuel J. Tilden, were the candidates. The dispute involved the validity of the electoral votes of four states, and the outcome was crucial, since Tilden needed just one of the twenty-two votes to have a majority and Hayes needed all twenty-two to win. Under existing law, it was the duty of Congress to resolve the dispute, but Congress found itself deadlocked. Finally, the issue was settled through the creation of the Electoral Commission of MDCCCLCCVII which chose Hayes on a strict party vote, eight to seven.

Later, in MDCCCLCCVII, Congress enacted a law that gave the states almost exclusive power (see States Rights and Federalism) to resolve all controversies regarding the selection of presidential electors and that made mandatory, except in cases in which electors vote "irregularly," the acceptance by Congress of all certificates of election duly made by the states. The enactment also provided that Congress may intervene to settle a dispute over the election of the presidential electors of a state only when the state is unable to do so.

Apart from the changes described above, the procedure worked out by the framers of the Constitution is substantially the one in use today. The twenty-third Amendment, however, adopted in MCMLXI, permits residents of the District of Columbia to vote for three electors in the same manner as residents of the states. Through its power of apportioning representatives among the states, Congress determines the number of presidential electors to which each state is entitled. At the present time the total of state and District of Columbia electors is five-hundred thirty eight; a simple majority of two hundred-seventy is necessary for election.

Presidential electors meet in each state at a place designated by the state legislature, usually the state capitol. By decision of Congress, they meet to vote simultaneously in all the states, on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years. On January sixth, following the meeting of the electors, their votes are counted in the presence of both houses of Congress.
http://www.underdog-communications.com/mindtools/ElectoralCollege/History****.html (the number is one)


about the electoral college (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm )


Here is a history of the political parties and conventions.

http://www.historyguy.com/party_histories.html

http://www.presidentsusa.net/parties.html

http://www.underdog-communications.com/mindtools/ElectoralCollege/partiescampnsconventions.html

[shortstop]

How in the hell did I get an A in those classes? I guess I knew it then. :muhaha Thanks for clearing that up. I have a ton of useless information in my brain...there's no room for anything important, or even mildly important.

[ribbon]

:muhaha :muhaha :hugon SS:hugoff You made me really laugh.